Remembrance and Veterans

Andrew Bowie Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

It is a great privilege to rise to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition in this debate. I congratulate all hon. Members who made a maiden speech, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) on her excellent speech. Although it was not a maiden speech, I also thank the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) for mentioning those who were lost at sea. It is far too often overlooked that those who were lost at sea in various conflicts have no grave that families can visit, but their sacrifice was no less important and should be no less remembered at this time.

It is rare to sit in the Chamber and enjoy a debate where there is so much common cause on both sides of the House. I join other hon. Members in congratulating the Duke of York and Albany’s Maritime Regiment of Foot on its 360th anniversary—I do not believe the vicious rumour doing the rounds in Parliament that that was the name borne by the Royal Marines when the Minister joined up all those years ago. It is as it should be that we join together as a nation and look towards remembrance as one. Remembrance Sunday and Armistice Day are when we pause, reflect, remember and pay thanks to all those who have given the ultimate sacrifice that allows us to live in the peace and freedom we enjoy in our country today.

Remembrance means different things to different people. When the “Last Post” sounds in Ballater in two weeks’ time, I will be thinking of my great-uncle Samuel Coyle, who fell at Gallipoli in 2015, one week short of his 21st birthday, and lies buried at Pink Farm cemetery in Turkey. I will think of my great-grandfather, who endured and survived the Somme battlefield; my paternal grandfather, who fought with the 8th Army at El-Alamein, Sicily, Italy, France and Germany, and survived to tell the tale; my maternal grandfather, who for over two decades served in the Royal Navy; and my godfather, a Royal Marine, who served from the Falklands to Northern Ireland.

I will also think of my friends who served and are still serving in far more recent conflicts and operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and the various but less reported naval operations of the last 20 years—our continued presence in the south Atlantic, our oilfield patrols off Iraq and the anti-piracy operations in Somalia to name but a few. As we have heard this afternoon, we all remember individuals, family and close friends who chose to serve our country and were prepared to—and, in some cases, did—pay the ultimate sacrifice, and we do remember them.

When we collectively think of remembrance as a nation and when we think of veterans, for many the image conjured up is of the old soldier who landed at D-day proudly marching with his oppos past the Cenotaph, a survivor of a long-distant conflict. They remain rightly at the forefront of our thoughts this year as we commemorate 80 years since D-day, Monte Cassino and other hugely significant operations in that world conflict, which was fought to defend freedom and democracy. It was our victory in that conflict that remains the reason why we can stand in this place today. We remain forever in the debt of that greatest generation.

We must also remember, however, the veterans from much more recent conflicts—the much smaller group of men and women who fought far from our shores in the name of Queen and country, but who, unlike previous generations, did not return to a country with a shared experience of war and conflict. In many cases, they returned to a country that did not really want to know. Being a veteran of a late 20th-century or early 21st-century conflict is, in 2024, far removed from the experiences of those who fought between 1914 and 1918 and between 1939 and 1945. Supporting this new generation is far harder for those charities and organisations that do so much unseen work all year round, not just during this time of remembrance.

It was for this new generation of former servicemen and women that the former Veterans Minister Johnny Mercer, to whom I pay tribute, was determined to fight. That is why he was determined to make this country the best in the world in which to be a veteran. It is also why we as a Government established the Office for Veterans’ Affairs, put the armed forces covenant into law and set up Defence Transition Services, providing tailored support to help service people with their transition to civilian life. We launched Operation Fortitude to end homelessness, Operation Prosper to support veterans into work after they leave the armed forces, Operation Restore to support the physical needs of veterans and Operation Courage to support veterans’ mental health. We invested £400 million to modernise thousands of military homes, provided funding for armed forces charities to carry out their vital work, and introduced a new veterans railcard to help veterans reconnect both with loved ones and with new training and work opportunities. We supported veterans through the provisions in our Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021 and the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. I know the Minister is aware that the repeal and replacement of that Act is rightly causing concern in the community of veterans who fought during the troubles.

We are near unique as a nation in honouring the memory of all those who have fallen, those who have served and those who serve in the way we do. It is to our credit as a country. There are still groups that feel forgotten. For example, as has been mentioned, there are the veterans of our nuclear tests, with many still fighting for recognition of what they were asked to do and for what they endured many years on for their country. There is the Photographic Reconnaissance Unit of the RAF, which has also been mentioned. The unit had one of the highest attrition rates in world war two, but it still has no national memorial, and its members must also be remembered in the coming days.

This year when the “Last Post” sounds, it will be some 16 years since, as a very young sub-lieutenant, I had the privilege of meeting the three remaining veterans of world war one—Harry Patch, Henry Allingham and Bill Stone—at the Cenotaph as we marked 90 years since the end of that war, the war supposedly to end all wars. This year, let us pause and think of those unseen veterans who walk among us today: those who did not return, and their friends and their family still living with the loss. Let us also remember those who, as we sit here tonight, remain prepared to give everything for our nation. Let us recommit to do for them what a grateful nation should, and let us redouble our efforts to truly make this country the best in the world in which to be a veteran.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Bowie Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

This weekend marked 40 years since one of the most appalling and audacious terrorist attacks on British soil, the attack on the Conservative party conference in Brighton in 1984. Five people died in the bombing. If you will forgive me, Mr Speaker, they were the Member of Parliament for Enfield, Southgate, Anthony Berry; Lady Jeanne Shattock; Muriel Maclean of the Scottish Conservatives; Eric Taylor; and Roberta Wakeham. All are remembered. Thirty-one people were also injured and some never recovered.

The peace that we enjoy today in Northern Ireland and across these islands was hard-won over many decades, but hard-won also was the protection afforded to our veterans, who served our country through the troubles and have since been plagued by ambulance-chasing lawyers with vexatious claims. That protection was achieved through the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, but there is concern within the veteran community that the new Government’s proposed repealing and replacement of that Act will put those men and women, many of whom are now well into retirement, at risk. Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman assure me, and them, that they will be protected and that those who served our country with distinction and valour over so many years will never be at the mercy of those seeking to distort their service or to damage their lives and reputations?

[Al Carns]

I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his comments. Our Government recognise the important service of veterans and serving personnel and the sacrifices they made to keep us all safe in Northern Ireland during the troubles. I did not serve during the troubles, but I did serve in Northern Ireland and I understand them. He has my absolute commitment that any individual who needs to go through legal proceedings will get the correct welfare and legal support.

Afghan Special Forces Relocation Review

Andrew Bowie Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement and for its tone. The debt of gratitude that we owe all those who bravely served for, with or alongside our armed forces in support of our mission in Afghanistan is so great that words cannot do it justice. They worked at great personal risk to make Afghanistan a better place, and it is right that we supported them and continue to support them now.

I am proud that, in addition to Operation Pitting, where we evacuated 15,000 people from Afghanistan in 2021, the previous Government established the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme and the Afghan relocation and assistance policy. I welcome that, as of 30 June, indefinite leave to remain had been granted to 12,874 individuals across both schemes. The House will be aware that many former Afghan specialist unit members have safely relocated to the UK, along with their families, through the ARAP scheme. However, I acknowledge the issues relating to applications from a cohort of members of the Triples.

As the House is aware, a review was announced in February by the then Minister for the Armed Forces, the former Member for Wells, my right hon. Friend James Heappey. Rightly, the Ministry of Defence has been reviewing ineligible decisions made against applications from the Triples and other specialist units, with an eye to any inconsistencies. It is important that this work is done thoroughly and with great care. I welcome the Minister’s update to the House today on the work of that review process. I also commend him for his courtesy in coming to the House in person to make his statement.

I listened very carefully to what the Minister said about the new information, including evidence that builds a picture of direct employment by the UK Government of some Triples, and the overturning of decisions, including the rate of overturning. We on the Conservative Benches support this review process, which was initiated by James Heappey, being completed successfully. We want the correct decisions made on these very important and highly sensitive applications as speedily and fairly as possible. We hope to receive further updates from His Majesty’s Government.

What course of action will the Minister take for the applications of Triples where no evidence of employment is found? More broadly, the House would welcome an update on the flow of those potentially eligible for ARAP from Afghanistan to Pakistan, and from Pakistan to the United Kingdom. Could the hon. Gentleman outline what conversations he has had with the Pakistani authorities to ensure that ARAP-eligible Afghan special forces personnel are not evicted from their country?

As ever, we also want the Government to ensure that those who arrive through the scheme receive the support they need, so that they can begin successfully rebuilding their lives in the United Kingdom. What will the impact be of the decision announced today on housing stock for ARAP applicants?

Finally, we reiterate our call for the human rights of all Afghans to be protected, and for the monitoring and documenting of discrimination and abuses committed by the Taliban. We again strongly condemn the Taliban’s attacks on the rights of women and girls. The international community must continue to press the Taliban to reverse course.

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the shadow Minister for his support for the review and for the Triples in general. Those who served alongside our forces are owed a debt of gratitude by all those in the UK. It is good that there is cross-party support for the Triples and for the contribution they made in support of our mission to Afghanistan.

On the shadow Minister’s question, there is an ongoing application process for ARAP, where people can apply and their eligibility is checked. It is entirely possible that someone can qualify while still not having direct employment, but that is subject to the case-by-case process for the individual applicant. The review and the update I am presenting today does not mean that all Triples are eligible, nor does it mean that no Triples are eligible. It means that where a direct employment relationship has been established we will now take forward their applications, whereas previously those applications were refused.

We will continue to work with the Government of Pakistan. We are grateful for their work and support in facilitating the flow of eligible persons from Afghanistan to Pakistan and then onwards to the United Kingdom. It is important that we continue that flow, so people who are currently at risk from the Taliban—it is important that we stress that they are at risk because of the Taliban’s actions—have the ability to get to sanctuary. We are doing so at a reasonable pace to ensure that the entire flow can be delivered properly and sensibly.

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for saying what he did on rebuilding lives. There is, I think, enormous support from all parties here for the Afghans who put their lives at risk to support our troops to be settled in the UK and to start a new life. I am grateful to Members from both sides of the House who have supported efforts in their own constituencies to do so. The new Government are working across government, with colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Home Office. We will make further announcements when we can on transitional accommodation, to make sure the flow is appropriate through the United Kingdom. There will be some Members of Parliament who will have transitional accommodation in their constituencies. I am very happy to speak to them to ensure that the integration and flow is as smooth as possible.

I echo the words of the shadow Minister in relation to the appalling atrocities of the Taliban, not just in their attacks on the rights of women and girls in Afghanistan, but in the way that they are pursuing, and in many cases deliberately attacking, those people who served alongside coalition forces in Afghanistan. It is the actions of the Taliban that put at risk those people who tried to rebuild their own country and work for a better Afghanistan alongside our troops. That is why the ARAP scheme is so important, and why it enjoys cross-party support and will continue to do so.

Defence Supplementary Estimate 2021-22

Andrew Bowie Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[John Howell]

I see my right hon. Friend is nodding, so perhaps he will not intervene on me, having made that point. But there is another point on that—the strategic investment that the Royal Air Force will be making, which I will come back to. I am very conscious that it is not just us increasing spending now but countries such as Germany and Denmark. I encourage them to increase their spending further.

Before I come to the Royal Air Force, let me say a word about the Navy. Before the crisis between Russia and Ukraine started, I got the Navy’s leading expert on Russia to come to speak to my delegation to the Council of Europe. Hon. Members may ask why I got a naval expert to come to a delegation that has said it has nothing to do with the security apparatus of Europe. The reason is that I do not buy that argument and actually what the rear-admiral concerned said filled us with a tremendous amount of horror. He pointed out Russia’s interest in the Baltic passages in particular and, more generally, how ill-equipped we were to be able to deal with that. I therefore ask for more investment to be made in that area.

Something like £2 billion of strategic investment is to be made in the Royal Air Force. I think that that should be increased. If Russia has taught us anything, it is that investment in tanks is not a very good investment. If we look at Ukraine, a huge amount of anti-tank missiles are there already and something as fleet of foot as the Royal Air Force is to be commended. I do not want to set a hare running, but I hope that the Minister can confirm that bases such as RAF Benson are not earmarked for closure. They play a vital role and Benson does in particular in looking after the helicopters that we use all the time in our Air Force. They also have another use; they provide training.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

I had the privilege of visiting RAF Benson just a couple of weeks ago and I reiterate my hon. Friend’s comments on that base’s contribution to training the next generation of helicopter pilots and supporting the wider RAF and, indeed, the local community. I echo his remarks and hope that the Minister will confirm that Benson is not earmarked for closure.

[John Howell]

I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks and support. I was going to mention some of that training—and, indeed, some of the training that I have gone through there. Benson is home to CAE, a company that provides a tremendous amount of simulator training for the RAF. He will no doubt be pleased to know that I flew a Chinook and a Puma on the simulator so successfully that I did not crash them. I think that is a tribute to the success of the training, rather than to my dexterity at the controls of two very large aircraft.

On the relationship with companies that provide equipment and larger things to the military, over the years I have tried to put across to the Minister’s Department the idea of a conflict avoidance board for such projects. They work incredibly well in industry. People who are skilled in mediation sit on them and their aim is to stop something becoming a conflict. As we all know, all projects have such problems during their lives and conflict avoidance boards are good at ensuring that we can avoid such conflicts. What is the benefit of that? It goes straight to the heart of the budget. Doing that is much cheaper than spending vast amounts of money going through the courts, with QCs and whoever else is needed to settle a particular argument. I urge the Minister to look at the scheme again for his larger projects. The feedback that I got was closer to a kick in the teeth than anything else, yet I think the boards have tremendous potential. On that note, I will finish and allow somebody else to take over.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to rise to speak in this debate. I have been nearly five years in this place, and every six months or so—periodically at least—we come together to discuss defence. Usually, it is the same old voices and the same points being made, and we all go away saying, “It is good to hear a unified Chamber all speaking as one asking for more to be spent on defence and for more interest to be shown in the defence community or the armed forces in general.” Undoubtedly, we would hear a polite and eloquent response from the Minister at the Dispatch Box—I am expecting no less from today’s Minister—espousing the great extent to which the UK Government were investing more in the armed forces and where it was being spent. The difference today is that we are conducting this debate at a time when images are being shown on our television screens of events happening in Europe now that we thought we would be witnessing only in history books or documentaries—a Europe of 1942, not of 2022. That puts this debate into context. We are talking about defence spending and the estimates, so the debate gives us the chance to interrogate the MOD’s expenditure and to look at wider defence spending. As I was mentioning those on the Treasury Bench, I must pay tribute to the excellent work that Ministers, specifically those in this Department, have been doing over the past few weeks, keeping us all informed, carrying the message to the British public about what we are doing to support the Ukrainian people and ensuring that the Ukrainian armed forces got the training and the equipment that they need to stop Russia and to stop Vladimir Putin doing what he is doing.

I wish to make two points. The first is on the continual debate about percentage spending. We should always remember that 2% is the minimum we are expected to spend on defence by NATO. We now need to look very much at what that 2% is. What does the 2% mean when it comes to UK defence spending? A 2016 report by the Defence Committee called “Shifting the goalposts?” showed that now the 2% includes war pensions, contributions to United Nations peacekeeping, pensions for retired civilian MOD personnel and MOD income, among other things. Fair enough, if that is to be included in defence spending, that is to be included in defence spending, but we should not for one minute assume that if we are saying we are spending 2% of GDP on defence, it is being spent on defence equipment or on personnel; it now covers a far bigger, wider range of things than it used to when we were calculating what we were contributing to the overall NATO budget.

The report also said:

“The 2% pledge, while necessary, may not be sufficient. We believe that the focus should not be merely on a headline figure, but on whether this expenditure can possibly provide a sound defence for the UK.”

Never has that been more true than today, given what we are witnessing in Europe. As has been said time and time again, mass still matters. When the integrated review was published last year, I welcomed much of it. I think we do need to invest in cyber and psy-ops—psychological operations—and we need to spend more on the Royal Navy, in a period when our need to be in charge of the seas, to protect freedom of navigation, especially in the South China sea, with our allies over there, is very important. But it is absolutely true that, as so many Members have said today, a plan survives only until first contact with the enemy. We must now look at the assumptions made in the integrated review, because they are simply out of date. I am not saying we should review the review—goodness me, we all know how much time and effort is taken by defence reviews in general—but it is essential that we look at what we are currently doing and at where we will spend money in the near future.

It is simply inconceivable that we are about to reduce the size of our Army by 10,000 personnel. At a time when allies of ours are being invaded by an aggressive foe, it is simply untenable for us to send the signal that we are reducing the size of our armed forces. That has to be looked at again. I echo the words of so many of my colleagues when I say that we really must increase spending on defence. Defence is not a luxury item, a “might have” or an addition; it is essential to who we are and what we deliver for our allies around the world. We do deliver for our allies around the world, but we need to ensure that we do so in the most efficient manner possible.

Migrant Crossings: Role of the Military

Andrew Bowie Excerpts

Tuesday 18th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[James Heappey]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. If Border Force vessels are fitted with a capability that the Royal Navy commander feels is inappropriate for use, he will not direct that it is used. That is his judgment. The hon. Gentleman, as the proud MP of the Royal Navy in Devonport, probably appreciates that in the MOD we deal with operational mission command and the Royal Navy uses its judgment to bring to bear what it thinks is best. I trust Rear Admiral Utley entirely to make the right decisions in that regard.

I will be honest with the hon. Gentleman: I am not entirely clear about the custom for publishing rules of engagement. Perhaps he will let me write to him with that in due course.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

Can my hon. Friend guarantee that no resource—be that manpower or asset—will be removed from another theatre to which an already overstretched Royal Navy is currently deployed, carrying out its primary role of protecting the UK and its interests, and those of our allies around the world?

[James Heappey]

I can. Commander UK Strike Force is a UK-based two-star commander—I suspect that my hon. Friend, as a former Navy man, knows that—and the ships mentioned as possibly having utility in this context are already committed to home waters.

UK Military Personnel Serving Overseas: Vaccination

Andrew Bowie Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd June 2021 Commons Chamber

[James Heappey]

The detail of vaccines and positive tests by country is held, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I am not sure you would indulge me if I were to go through the spreadsheet. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would accept it if I were to write to him and place a copy in the Library, so it can be a matter of record.

The headline stat, as I said in my answer to a parliamentary question last week, is that 98.6% of people deployed overseas have had their first dose, and 56% have had their second dose. I accept that there could be a debate on all professions, whether they be clinicians in the NHS, teachers or members of the armed forces. We made a judgment that, where the medical facilities are sufficient to safely administer the vaccine in a deployed environment, those people would receive their vaccine in line with their age cohort in the general UK population. Where it is not possible to do that, such as with the continuous at-sea deterrent, they were fully vaccinated before deployment.

I am also grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising the activities around HMS Defender in the Black sea earlier today. No warning shots have been fired at HMS Defender. The Royal Navy ship is conducting innocent passage through Ukrainian territorial waters, in accordance with international law. We believe the Russians were undertaking a gunnery exercise in the Black sea and provided the maritime community with prior warning of their activity. No shots were directed at HMS Defender, and we do not recognise the claim that bombs were dropped in her path.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

While it is, of course, welcome that 98.6% of our service personnel overseas have been vaccinated, just for reassurance, of those men and women serving overseas and their families back here in the UK, can my hon. Friend confirm that it is now and will be a priority of the Ministry of Defence, if it is not already, to ensure that all those serving overseas in our name, for this country, have access to both their jabs as a matter of urgency?

[James Heappey]

First, let me just correct myself for fear that I have inadvertently misled the House: the figure for all overseas deployments is 95%; 98.6% refers to the deployment in Mali. I apologise for that inaccuracy.

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Given where we are in the national vaccination programme, one might argue that that is now the case, as everybody is within days of receiving their first jab. In fact, the way that the vaccination programme was administered whereby everybody over 50 received their jab in one go towards the front end of the priority groups at home meant that many in their 50s and 60s overseas—although in the defence population that is not very many—ended up receiving their jabs ahead of their age group in the UK. Likewise, for those under 40, jabs were effectively being rolled out in line with people in their 40s here in the UK. That means that many of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and airwomen who were in their late teens or 20s were getting their jab well ahead of their contemporaries.

Strength of the UK’s Armed Forces

Andrew Bowie Excerpts

Wednesday 14th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker; I will endeavour not to be cut off.

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, which has been very interesting. It is actually a very thoughtful motion that we are considering—much more so than some of the other Opposition day motions we have been used to considering of late. Maybe that is why it has had such a sympathetic hearing from so many of my hon. Friends. We only have to look at what is happening on the Ukrainian border to see that even today, despite all the advancements that we have in technology, mass still matters.

Yet I cannot support the motion, primarily because of the very last sentence where it talks about the Government’s plans to reduce the capability of the armed forces. Unfortunately, that is simply not true. They are reducing the size—the overall manpower—of the armed forces but they are not reducing the capability. In fact, the £24.1 billion investment—the biggest increase in defence spending since the cold war—should be welcomed. The investment in new technologies and in accommodation, supporting forces’ families, is also something that we should all welcome. It is especially welcome in Scotland, where the review and settlement cement the armed forces footprint north of the border, guaranteeing the presence of the armed forces on the Clyde, at Lossiemouth and elsewhere across the country, investing in our shipyards by placing orders for 20 warships to be built on the Clyde, and providing jobs across the country in our world-leading defence industry sector at companies such as Leonardo in Edinburgh, which is providing the UK-led future combat air system.

I thank the Opposition for putting forward a very thoughtful motion. This has indeed been a very interesting debate with good contributions from all sides. However, because of the simple truth that we are not reducing the capability of the armed forces, I cannot—

[Bob Stewart]

I am sorry to have to disagree with my very good friend. We are reducing the capability of our armed forces. We are reducing their capability to do peacekeeping, limited operations, counter-insurgency and peacemaking. We have not got the men to do it. That is what we are doing.

[Andrew Bowie]

I thank my right hon. and gallant Friend—my very good friend—for his intervention. I would never seek to disagree with him on matters of defence, but on this issue, although not wrong, I think that the investment that we are making in technology will allow this country to be at the forefront of expanding our capabilities as a country in doing all the things that he spoke about, which we are very proud that our armed forces do for us and for our allies around the world. That is why I cannot support this motion.

Integrated Review: Defence Command Paper

Andrew Bowie Excerpts

Monday 22nd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

I do not think it does. When the hon. Gentleman’s party was in government, it did not reverse the reductions from the time that I was in the Army. As I have said throughout this afternoon, the key is getting the balance of giving our soldiers and sailors the right protections they need, ensuring that our ambition does not overstretch them, and ensuring that they have the right training and investment in themselves so that they not only stay, but have a fulfilled career.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s words from the Dispatch Box this afternoon, especially his commitment to more than 20 frigates and destroyers by the end of the next decade, but I was slightly concerned by the vague reference to the new automatic mine-hunting system, which will replace the Sandown and Hunt classes. My right hon. Friend knows that these two classes do far more than just hunt mines; they are a great deterrent and deliver a presence in supporting our allies around the world. Will he give us more detail on what this new automatic mine-hunting capability is, and on whether the Sandown and Hunt classes will be replaced like for like?

[Mr Wallace]

If my hon. Friend would like me to, I would be delighted to get him a briefing on the exact progress of that system. Automated mine-hunting can currently cover, in key points, far more area than a ship, and it is really important for some parts of the patrols and areas that we cover. I would be delighted to give him some more detail; I will get him a briefing.

Remembrance, UK Armed Forces and Society

Andrew Bowie Excerpts

Wednesday 11th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and especially to follow the brilliant, eloquent speeches that we have had so far this afternoon. Over the years, I have been privileged to observe Armistice Day and the two-minute silence in some unique and special places. Twelve years ago, as part of the team that organised the 90th anniversary of the great war, I was at the Cenotaph with Harry Patch, Henry Allingham and Bill Stone, the three remaining veterans of that awful conflict. I defy anyone who was there that day or remembers watching it on TV not to have been moved by the sight of Henry Allingham, who was determined to lay his own wreath at the foot of the Cenotaph to pay tribute to his fallen comrades but was sadly unable to do so.

In 2015, I was with colleagues who worked with me at the European Parliament in Loos in northern France on a cold, grey northern French morning as the gloom lifted upon row upon row of British gravestones in the cemetery, many of which were marked “Known unto God”. We witnessed the residents of that town paying tribute to the British soldiers, 7,766 of whom gave their lives at that battle. Many of them were from the north-east of Scotland and Tayside. They fell in defence of that town for their country and for the freedom of France and its allies.

Of course, I think of my great-uncle Samuel Coyle who, at 19 years old, a young lad who had never left Greenock in his life, fell at Gallipoli and lies buried alongside 600 other British and Commonwealth soldiers at the Pink Farm cemetery in Turkey. We often focus very much on the sacrifices made by the generation of world war one and world war two, but this weekend I was struck that we should, of course, also be thinking of the guys and girls who served in our armed forces much more recently. It struck me that, barely six years after British troops withdrew from Helmand province in Afghanistan and the end of that operation, the sacrifices made by the men, women and service families much more recently are, if not being forgotten, already fading from public consciousness.

I will not forget, nearly every morning in those awful days of 2007-08, being at Dartmouth or Portsmouth, on deployment overseas or, indeed, here in London, opening a newspaper or turning on the news to read yet another name or hear about another cortège passing through Royal Wootton Bassett. I remember while based at RAF Uxbridge remarking to an oppo of mine as we watched the festival of Remembrance how sad it was that the war widows’ procession, which when I was much younger had been predominantly made up of widows from the world war two generation, was much more the families of young men and women of my age.

Although life in the rest of the country went on pretty much as normal, as we fretted about the financial crisis, the coalition Government or preparations for the Olympics, our young boys and girls were under fire and were prepared to give their lives for our country and for us in a foreign field. We should never forget them or those men and women who should still be here with us today, who might otherwise be standing in the House today or walking among us in the streets.

This debate is titled “Remembrance, UK Armed Forces and Society,” and one of my earliest and clearest memories is as a seven-year-old going out with all my primary school to watch the Gordon Highlanders parade through Inverurie, a town Madam Deputy Speaker knows well, to mark their disbandment and amalgamation with the Seaforth and Cameron Highlanders to form 1st Battalion, the Highlanders, which subsequently became the Highlanders, 4th Battalion of the Royal Regiment of Scotland—4 Scots. In this identity, they have seen tours of duty in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I remember so many people being sad about that 200-year-old local link ending—the link to the north-east of Scotland, the unique, beautiful and fiercely independent part of Scotland where the regiment was proud to come from. The finest regiment in the world, as Winston Churchill called it, had come to an end.

The north-east is not unique in feeling that. Every area feels an attachment to its local regiment, and every area feels a deep sense of loss when the British Army, as it has throughout its history, goes through a reorganisation and modernisation process and merges, disbands, renames or moves regiments. However, there is a danger in removing that local link and taking the Army, or the Navy or Air Force for that matter, out of a local community, shrinking the size and therefore the visibility of the defence footprint across the country for whatever economic, strategic or political reason, that we run the risk of removing our armed forces, the men and women, from public consciousness and their becoming out of sight and out of mind.

I represent one of the biggest constituencies in the country. It covers Aberdeenshire, the fourth largest county in Scotland. Between Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire, we have a population of 490,000 people and cover an area of 6,498 square miles. We have not one regular Army, Navy or Air Force presence. It is incumbent on all of us, as we mark Remembrance Day today and go about our lives from now on, to remember the men and women of the armed forces serving today. Although they are not physically present in all the communities where they used to be, we should make sure they are ever present in our thoughts as we move forward throughout the rest of the year.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Bowie Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point. I served alongside RUC Special Branch in my time, and I have the highest regard for the RUC officers, many of whom lost their lives in fighting during the troubles. Obviously, we will look at what we can do around other Crown servants to make sure that they are protected from that same vexatious industry that is going on at the moment in Northern Ireland.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

2. What plans he has to increase the number of Royal Navy (a) frigates and (b) destroyers.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (James Heappey)]

The Prime Minister has announced that the Government will undertake the deepest review of Britain’s security, defence and foreign policy since the end of the cold war. We remain committed to ensuring that the Royal Navy will have the ships required to fulfil its defence commitments.

[Andrew Bowie]

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. While I welcome that commitment, may I raise concerns that many are bringing to me—that at the minute we simply do not have enough ships to protect our two new aircraft carriers should they ever have to go to sea at the same time? Is it still the commitment of the Government to have two wholly UK sovereign deployable carrier groups to deploy at the same time, should we ever have to, while maintaining our other commitments overseas?

[James Heappey]

Although that has never been the policy of the Government, both aircraft carriers have been brought into service to ensure that one is always available 100% of the time. Although the precise number and mix of vessels deployed within a maritime task group would depend on operational circumstances, we will be able to draw from a range of highly capable vessels, such as Type 45 destroyers, Type 23 frigates, and the Astute class submarines—and, in the near future, Type 26 frigates as well.